Once again, welcome to the IOM News.All countries except Panama, Venezuela, and the United Kingdom were present at the assembly. The first session concluded with the successful approval of the first working paper after the council had divided into two blocs to negotiate different approaches to the issue. Following the conclusion of the first topic, the committee was interrupted by an unexpected crisis regarding the alleged kidnapping and murder of Brazilian activist Thiago Ávila. Brazil strongly advocated for an international investigation led by Interpol. However, Germany, Israel, the United States, Spain, and France opposed the proposal. The investigation later revealed possible connections between the actors involved and the American Immigration Force, allegedly operating in cooperation with ICE. In response, Haiti, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Panama called for greater international transparency and accountability in migration enforcement operations. After addressing the crisis and voting on the proposed responses, delegates moved on to the second agenda item: Possible Solutions for the Impacts and Consequences Caused by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The debate focused on strengthening humanitarian protections for migrants, addressing the root causes of irregular migration, and developing alternative approaches to handling undocumented migrants. Delegates repeatedly emphasized that migration is often driven by factors such as poverty, political instability, violence, and lack of economic opportunities in countries of origin.A major point of discussion was the reinforcement of humanitarian laws and the protection of migrants throughout detention and deportation procedures. Several delegations argued that international standards should be strengthened to ensure respect for human rights. With broad support emerging for a compromise solution, the committee has now advanced to the drafting stage of the resolution paper. Delegates are expected to spend the next session refining clauses, negotiating final amendments, and seeking consensus before the resolution is presented for voting.

Session 3 focused on the balance between public security and human rights in the fight against organized crime. Colombia stated that detention alone is not a sufficient solution and drew attention to the social consequences of prison conditions. Brazil, Honduras, and South Africa advocated for education, rehabilitation, and international cooperation as sustainable long‑term responses. The French Republic called for greater transparency and collaboration among nations, while the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation emphasized the principles of national sovereignty and institutional reform. The most intense exchange took place between the United Mexican States, the Republic of El Salvador, and the United States of America. El Salvador declared that it would not accept Colombian detainees, alleging links between Colombia and criminal groups. In response, Colombia criticized El Salvador, raising concerns regarding human rights violations. The United States maintained that robust security measures are essential to safeguard public safety, while Mexico questioned whether human rights standards are applied equally in all contexts. China stressed that human rights must never be treated as a negotiable matter.

The second day of the proceedings at the International Criminal Court began with an unexpected crisis. Just before the session opened, a group calling itself the Sudanese Council for the Defense of Dignity entered the courtroom and took the female judges hostage. The group demanded that Omar al-Bashir’s trial be conducted according to Islamic law as defined in the Quran and that the court reach a definitive verdict of guilty or innocent. They argued that applying Western legal principles to a Muslim leader was unjust. Under threat that the judges would be executed if no verdict was reached, court officials and attorneys were forced to continue under these conditions. During the hearing, the prosecution argued that as President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir had the responsibility to protect the safety and well-being of all citizens but failed to do so. It also cited Quranic teachings condemning violence against innocent people, including women, children, and unarmed civilians. The defense challenged much of the prosecution’s reasoning, claiming it relied heavily on Western legal concepts that were not fully applicable to the case. After considering the arguments, the judges concluded that the prosecution had presented the stronger and more coherent case and found al-Bashir guilty. The court also heard testimony from Hawa Mohammed, a survivor of attacks on rural Sudanese villages. She recounted how armed men in military uniforms killed her husband, assaulted her and her children, and left her without any assistance from authorities afterward. The prosecution argued that her testimony demonstrated the government’s failure to prevent crimes, punish perpetrators, and protect victims. The defense questioned the reliability of her account, suggesting that severe trauma could have affected her memory and perception of events. Later, both sides agreed to seek additional evidence and witness testimony. Among the witnesses was Ali Kushayb, a former Sudanese soldier. He stated that he had never communicated directly with Omar al-Bashir and explained that the military operated through a strict chain of command. According to Kushayb, refusing orders could result in severe consequences, including threats to himself and his family. He admitted participating in operations where people were killed and witnessing acts of violence and sexual abuse committed by fellow soldiers. However, he maintained that military operations were intended to preserve order and security and that efforts were made to avoid harming civilians whenever possible.

Session 3 began with statements from the delegations: New Zealand emphasized that the situation should be classified as genocide according to its definition, while France asked the United Nations to send more personnel and offered medical support. The United States argued that these were mass killings rather than genocide, considered it an internal matter, refused to provide funding, and disagreed with Somalia’s position. Belgium stated that no country can solve the problem alone, that sending troops does not help peacekeeping, and accused some African nations of claiming victimhood only to receive aid. Zaire called for assistance from any source, and Pakistan urged unity to build a better future, noting that the past cannot be changed. The United States warned that funding without proper conditions would only repeat the crisis and raised the issue of accountability from countries with a colonial history. Belgium added that Rwanda and groups linked to its government were responsible, and that nations which ignored earlier warnings must now take responsibility. Delegates then held an unmoderated caucus to draft two separate working papers, followed by a writing session after a break. Voting took place clause by clause, with speeches for and against each proposal under the principle “forgive but not forget”; amendments were made to revise Clause 12, establishing humanitarian corridors supervised by the African Union and the United Nations, and to remove Clause 7 entirely.

In Session 4, Pakistan said the lack of action allowed the crisis to worsen and called for immediate measures, including an embargo. Most delegates agreed that deploying large numbers of soldiers could increase violence and lead to a larger conflict, while France and Belgium argued that civilians must be protected from their own government. The United States opposed sending troops, recalling previous losses in Somalia, and warned that repeating the same approaches would only lead to the same tragedy.

Session 5 started with another unmoderated caucus to finalize the second working paper, with all delegations actively participating. A crisis then arose: Elongated Muskrat, linked to emerald mines, claimed that certain Western countries had kidnapped and tortured him. After a round of questions, each delegation spoke in turn; some said his accusations were unfounded and lacked evidence, while others believed his claims were consistent with past patterns of foreign interference. The committee agreed that investigations must be carried out to verify the facts before making any further decisions.

The debate began with remarks from the Chair, after a motion to open a moderated caucus. The United States took the floor and presented the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), noting that policies vary widely between states, especially on reproductive rights and protection for Indigenous women. It also acknowledged that the country is the origin of modern “manosphere” movements — including incel groups, anti‑feminist ideologies, and disinformation networks — whose online extremism fuels radicalization, gun violence, and opposition to gender equality.

Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Russia briefly outlined measures to counter misogyny spread through “incel” and “red pill” content, which teaches users to subjugate women; none accepted points of information. Iran explained that its legal system, based on a strict interpretation of Sharia law, institutionalizes gender discrimination. Domestic violence and marital rape are not criminalized, while laws such as the Guardianship of Chastity and the Hijab protect perpetrators and punish women severely. Child marriage, restricted movement, “honor killings,” and harsh penalties for women’s rights activism are permitted. When questioned, the delegate stated that misogyny is official government policy — a form of “state patriarchy” — and that surveillance tools, including AI and cameras, enforce compliance. Germany highlighted its strong legal framework under the Criminal Code and the Istanbul Convention, but noted gaps in addressing cyber‑violence such as stalking, non‑consensual image sharing, and hate speech. Authorities struggle to keep pace with digital platforms, and concerns were raised about the effectiveness of current measures. Haiti reported that while its constitution guarantees equality, laws on rape and domestic violence are outdated and impunity is common. The situation is worsened by institutional collapse and armed gangs, which use sexual violence as a tool of control, alongside a culture of male dominance and widespread gun ownership. After a one‑hour drafting session, Mexico summarized the discussions, emphasizing the link between online and physical violence and the need for equal access to justice. Two working papers were presented: Group 1 (led by the U.S., U.K., and other nations) focused on universal rights, aid, and international oversight; Group 2 (Iran, Russia, Egypt) favored a stricter legal approach. Following reports of a protest being undermined, delegates drafted the International Protocol for Cooperation and Peaceful Digital Governance. It aims to reduce online extremism and protect rights defenders through three pillars: protection and investigation via the IEPP program and IIDIC commission, judicially supervised content moderation, and digital literacy education. The framework balances action against hate speech with respect for sovereignty and freedom of expression. Further details require a full review of the project.

The World Health Organization (WHO) session opened with a focus on the urgent need for a global framework to manage Artificial Intelligence in healthcare, specifically addressing ethical, legal, and security pillars. Opening speeches highlighted critical concerns regarding algorithmic bias, where systems trained on unrepresentative data reinforce health disparities, and the "AI divide" that prevents underdeveloped nations from accessing necessary infrastructure and experts. While nations like the United States pushed for innovation-friendly policies, others, including France and South Africa, emphasized the necessity of international cooperation and protecting sensitive patient data against rising ransomware threats. The debate took a drastic turn when a catastrophic crisis was revealed: an AI had accidentally engineered an extremely contagious virus with a 16.7% mortality rate, causing millions of deaths across Asia and reaching Latin America through poorly regulated investments. Tensions peaked as nations including Germany, Russia, Japan, and India faced accusations of potentially developing the virus to eliminate competition, while the United States responded by imposing travel bans on citizens from the most affected countries. In the face of this emergency, the committee shifted its focus to crisis management, debating the limits of AI autonomy and the absolute necessity of human oversight in medical procedures. The session concluded with the adoption of a comprehensive crisis resolution aimed at immediate containment and long-term regulation. Key measures included a global lockdown for affected regions and the establishment of a WHO-led emergency fund to support struggling nations. To prevent future incidents, the committee authorized the creation of the International Cyber AI Directorate (ICAID) and the "VECTOR-AI" program to provide digital infrastructure and professional training to developing countries. Ultimately, the delegates reaffirmed that public trust in medical AI depends on a transparent, coordinated international response that prioritizes human life and sovereign rights.

The committee concluded its discussion on the first item of the agenda. The People’s Republic of China expressed its willingness to provide economic support for neutral safeguards and programs aimed at ensuring the peaceful and safe use of nuclear energy. The French Republic, the United States of America, and Israel accused Iran of failing to comply with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non‑Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In response, Iran defended its position, stating that inspections must be conducted in a fair manner to respect its national sovereignty; otherwise, it would take appropriate measures regarding unauthorized activities within its territory.

Following the presentation of unsubstantiated claims by former United States President Donald Trump suggesting that Syria might be pursuing nuclear weapons development, delegates debated the risks of overreacting to unverified intelligence. While drafting a response to this situation, members agreed to strengthen safeguards in order to obtain accurate and reliable information. After extensive deliberations, the committee reached consensus on a resolution promoting research for the peaceful application of nuclear technology. Additionally, Pakistan proposed that any future investigations be carried out collectively by all member states of the Agency, rather than solely by the United States.

The United Nations Security Council commenced the second day of its deliberations by addressing the first item on its agenda. The session immediately grew tense when the Delegation of Iran requested formal apologies from the United States; the latter chose not to respond, leaving the matter unresolved. Following this exchange, Iran also sought an apology from Jordan, which the Delegation of Jordan firmly declined. Geopolitical tensions escalated further when Yemen delivered a statement arguing that countries not directly party to the conflict should refrain from intervening in the proposed resolution—a position that was promptly challenged by Israel, leading to a sharp exchange of views. As proceedings continued, Iran reaffirmed its position opposing any foreign military presence in the Strait of Hormuz. This stance drew immediate reaction, with numerous delegations requesting the floor to raise questions and express their concerns. Meanwhile, the United States maintained its firm approach, delivering strong statements and proposing rigorous international measures. Despite the vigorous exchanges and frequent points of clarification, the Council moved beyond debate to substantive work. By the conclusion of the first part of the session, delegates had begun drafting the first working paper. Following discussions on the working papers, the Council was confronted with an unforeseen and coordinated international crisis. A series of incidents sent shockwaves through the body: the assassination of Israel’s Ambassador in London, the outbreak of renewed unrest in the form of a Palestinian Intifada, and the abduction of five United States diplomats as well as the President of France. Compounding the situation were reports alleging a covert joint military operation by the United States and the United Kingdom targeting Iran. With major powers on high alert and the risk of a broader regional or global conflict imminent, delegates set aside their earlier work and operated under urgent pressure. Ultimately, they succeeded in drafting and adopting an emergency resolution to respond to the crisis. After the special session, the Council turned to the second item on its agenda: the situation in affected countries and further steps to be taken. Discussions focused primarily on addressing threats posed by non‑state armed groups, extending assistance to nations affected by instability, mitigating economic consequences, and coordinating the delivery of humanitarian aid. The debate became more complex as delegations also took up the sensitive issue of Iran’s nuclear programme. With statements still being delivered, the allocated time elapsed, and the session was formally adjourned.

The second day of the HUMUNITED committee under JUNEP opened with nearly all delegations present and entitled to vote, except for the delegation of Chile. During the first moderated caucus, the delegation of Norway emphasized that national sovereignty is fundamental, while also noting that the transition toward renewable energy remains a critical priority. Following Norway’s statement, the delegation of Saudi Arabia questioned how the United States of America could uphold the principle of sovereignty while engaging in oil exploration in equatorial nations; the United States responded that such activities may be carried out on the basis of mutual agreements. Iran stated that every country should have the full right to develop its own natural resources in order to strengthen its economy, and reaffirmed that sovereignty is an essential principle in matters of oil exploration.

Delegates worked jointly to draft a single working paper, which was presented and adopted without objection. The committee then turned to the second agenda item: restrictions on areas open to oil exploration, and the speakers’ list was opened.

The delegation of Fiji stressed that all extraction activities must comply with national legislation to ensure environmental protection, and that cooperation between governments and industry is possible only if it prioritizes the preservation of ecosystems. Brazil clarified that any entity wishing to operate or explore for oil within its territory must strictly observe its national regulations and limitations, including the rigorous environmental assessments conducted by IBAMA. China acknowledged the sensitivity of environmental concerns, but maintained that the decision on where to authorize exploration rests with each State, in accordance with its sovereign rights. Norway recommended against imposing broad geographical restrictions, noting that while some developing economies depend on oil production, targeted safeguards could still be applied.

Day 2 of the ECOSOC Committee continued discussions on the reform of international trade settlement systems and the future of the SWIFT network. Delegates debated measures to reduce the political weaponization of financial infrastructure, improve governance, and modernize payment mechanisms. Brazil emphasized that exclusion from SWIFT affects civilians as severely as it affects governments, and called for stronger safeguards to protect humanitarian activities. Germany supported reforms aimed at giving more countries a voice in decision‑making, while the United States maintained that sanctions constitute a necessary response to violations of international law. Belgium advocated for technological modernization and financial innovation, whereas the Russian Federation criticized unilateral sanctions and insisted that such restrictive measures should be approved exclusively through international institutions. The debate then turned to the working papers. Proponents argued that the proposals would enhance trust, prevent abuses of power, and establish a more balanced and modern system. Opponents — notably the Russian Federation and the United States — questioned whether the documents adequately addressed issues related to sanctions, accountability, and the participation of all countries in decision‑making processes.

The proceedings were then interrupted by a crisis: a high‑capacity quantum supercomputer, previously held under United Nations protection, was reported stolen by radical groups. The groups demanded far‑reaching economic reforms, including an end to the dominance of the United States dollar in global transactions. Delegates expressed concern, proposing investigations, dialogue, and emergency measures. Belgium and Germany suggested temporary measures to stabilize global markets and prevent financial disruption, while countries including Brazil, Panama, the Russian Federation, and Egypt prioritized negotiation and international cooperation. While some accusations were exchanged, most delegates urged the Committee to focus on recovering the equipment rather than assigning blame. This situation naturally led into the second agenda item: alternative infrastructure for global trade and the risks and implications of de‑dollarization. China argued that excessive reliance on the dollar creates systemic vulnerabilities and presented alternatives such as its own currency and the mBridge platform. Saudi Arabia described mBridge as a complementary system that could operate alongside SWIFT, enabling trade in national currencies. South Africa, Iran, Egypt, and France supported the exploration of alternative financial mechanisms, while the United States defended the stability of the dollar and cautioned against a hasty transition. As discussions concluded, delegations remained divided between proposals to strengthen the existing system and initiatives to develop new frameworks for a more multipolar global economy.